My latest Early Copper submissions and a GTG... . TV's POSTED...

lkenefic

Just got my results posted... here are my pics. Let's do a GTG... I'll post the TV's later

1819/8 Large Date

1820 Large Date

1829

1839 Booby Head

1856 Slant 5

RLSnapper

Here we go..........disclaimer I am no expert at Middle Dates
1819- XF45
1820- VF35
1829-AU50
1839--VF30
1856- AU53

Really nice Large Cents! My favorite is the 1829.

Walkerguy21D

Nice run!
As I know the grades I’ll keep mum and let others test their skills.

alaura22

58
58
58
58
58

jclovescoins

39 looks XF details to me cleaned
Others all look like different levels of AU with the first being a 58

jfriedm56

58, 55, 55, 50, 58

jedm

58, 53, 58, 40, 53 Very nice looking specimens.

hummingbird_coins

50, 40, 55, 45, 45

renomedphys

55,45,50,50,53

Moparmonster

40, 30, 55, 35, 40

tcollects

53, 40, 45, 40, 45

jesbroken

1819 AU50
1820 VF25
1829 AU58
1839 Details Rim Damage
1856 VF35

jclovescoins

results?

CRHer700

1819 50
1820 30
1829 40
1839 53
1856 45

Mr_Spud

55
45
58
50
55

lkenefic

OK... here we go for results:

1819/(8) 1C Large Date, BN AU58BN
1820 1C Large Date, BN AU50BN
1829 1C Large Letters, BN Genuine (97 - Environmental Damage)
1839 1C Booby Head, BN AU50BN
1856 1C Slanted 5, BN AU55BN

...and the TV's. I'd like everyone's comments on the pictures. Personally, I think the 1839 and the 1856 look acceptable. I've got the white balance set on my camera and the my images are pretty much spot on for how the coin "looks in hand". The only coin I'd need to go back and re-image is the 1829... it's a but under-exposed. The TV's for the 1819 and 1820 (especially) give me "pause"...

I'll post "the rest of the story" later tonight...

CRHer700

I did not see that coming on the 1820.

RLSnapper

@lkenefic ....I must have been using EAC standards . The TV's are nice......as I stated I am for sure not an expert on Middle Dates...I will stick with my Late Dates.

Mr_Spud

I guessed 2 of them right. The trueviews are a bit overexposed, some more than others. The lighting seems too bright on the left side of a couple of them that’s muting the surface focus and making that side washed out some.

jedm

Thanks for an interesting GTG. I didn't see the 1820 coming back with no grade. I think you got a bit of a pass on the '39 by getting a 50. I think I downgraded it a bit (40) due to rim issues.

lkenefic

...and now, the rest of the story...

I bought the 1819/8 raw from ebay about 3 years ago. I bid strong... at the time .. and had XF money into it. I was thinking mid AU...

1820 was cracked from a PCGS XF40 holder. I thought the coin was pretty nice for the grade and I'd have no problem getting it reholdered. I was thinking 45.

1829 was purchased as a details coin and heavily discounted. The image is a bit underexposed but look around star 4 on the obverse... you need a loupe to see it, but there's a small patch of corrosion. I was hopeful for a straight grade but agree with the no grade.

1839 Booby was purchased from an EAC dealer who described it as having "nice color" and choice surfaces. He graded it 45 details and netted it down to 40 for the barely perceptible lamination flaw in the dentils on the obverse at star 7. I was hoping for a straight graded 45.

1856 was purchased from a different EAC dealer that graded it 50 with no detractions. I thought it had a shot at 55 and our hosts agreed.

TV's... I guess I was expecting the worst, was pleasantly surprised on two... but there's glare on the reverse of the 1819/8 in the leaves that make it look more worn that it really is and the 1820 is just over exposed.

Take homes... EAC graders are still about 5 points more strict,on average, than PCGS. Surfaces really count!! What might have been considered market acceptable is no longer. Lastly, I still like getting TV's, but I'll try to reach out to customer service when I get the chance to see if something can be done post production about the one image... thanks